Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC108

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th May 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Edward Gary Francis Richomme

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1

A motor cycle was seen parked in the streets of St Helier with no tax disc on.  Enquiries revealed that it was owned by the defendant.  When contacted he admitted that he had no insurance for it but claimed that he had pushed the bike there for the purposes of selling it.  He agreed to remove the motor cycle.

Count 2

The defendant committed a grave and criminal assault upon his then girlfriend; he had been in a relationship for some 15 months.  They had argued on occasions throughout the day and the assault was committed at night in the streets of St Helier and was witnessed by other persons.  An agreed factual basis was put forward to the extent that the defendant admitted hitting the victim across the face causing her to fall into the side of a stationary car and then to the ground.  A general scuffle then occurred during which he had kicked her once in the region of her stomach with a shod foot.  Whilst she was on the ground he had also punched her.  When confronted by an eye witness he had run away.  The victim did not sustain any serious injury but rather had a multitude of abrasions, marks and bruising on her body including face.  Scars to her nose and face were visible for some months thereafter.  Her studies were affected by a lack of concentration for several months and she received some counselling.  She took anti-depressants for a period of time.

The defendant was unco-operative in interview denying all involvement in the grave and criminal assault and/or injuries sustained by the victim.  He put forward various implausible explanations for those injuries.  He denied he had been drinking as alleged by the victim.  He subsequently admitted to a probation officer that he had been drinking.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea entered at a late stage; within a matter of days of the start of the trial.  The Crown accepted that this was still a factor of substance and warranted the full one-third deduction as it had avoided a legal argument and also the trial at which the victim would have to give evidence.  This would have been an unpleasant experience for her.  He had residual credit for youth.  He had an appalling previous record including numerous offences for violence and therefore, had no good character.  Personal circumstances as revealed by the social enquiry report suggested a tragic and troubled upbringing.  He had been subjected to physical and sexual abuse as a child.  He has also witnessed the abuse of his mother.  He had been shown mercy in the past (see AG-v-Richomme [2006] JRC 068).  The Crown's contention was that this was a serious assault and having regard to the factors in Harrison-v-AG a custodial sentence was justified and warranted.

The Defence emphasised all of the above mitigating factors.  A number of letters and character references were handed up including a letter of remorse from the defendant and a letter from his mother.  He was in employment and was being of general assistance to mother and his other siblings.  He suggested that he had reacted to the teasing and flirting of the victim and that her actions drove him to a loss of temper.  He accepted that his reaction was, however, disproportionate.  He had tried to improve his life since his last period of custody.  Was using his spare time constructively.  The specific ADAPT course suggested by probation was not available were he to receive custody.

Previous Convictions:

14 convictions for a total of 51 offences including grave and criminal assault and 8 common assaults, resisting arrest, drunk and disorderly, malicious damage, public nuisance, break and entry, possession of a firearm without certificate, possession of cannabis and motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Compensation of £500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment (18 months' and 2 weeks' imprisonment in the event of fine not being paid).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant has pleaded guilty to a grave and criminal assault upon his girlfriend after drinking in St Helier.  The specific factual basis for that plea was repeated i.e. hitting her to the face knocking her to the ground, a general scuffle, one kick to the stomach and a punch.  No lasting injury was suffered although there was some psychological effect upon her.  After the assault the defendant went to see his doctor and was admitted to Orchard House for a week.  He has a very bad record and a previous conviction for grave and criminal assault in May 2006 for which he received 18 months' imprisonment.  That was a more serious offence than the current one.  The social enquiry report reveals a troubled childhood during which he suffered abuse and witnessed abuse on his mother.  Since his last conviction his mother has described him "as a diamond".  He was a positive influence on his siblings and is of general support to the family.  He has been assessed as appropriate to complete the ADAPT course.  Such a course cannot be undertaken in prison.

In mitigation he had his late change of plea to guilty.  He had the benefit of youth and is gainfully employed for a handicapped employer to whom he is of considerable assistance.  The Court could not question the Crown's conclusions, which was that the defendant would serve 18 months imprisonment.  However, there are exceptional cases where out of compassion or mercy the Court feels able to depart from its usual sentencing policy.  The Court had read the social enquiry report, letters and references.  The Court took the view that this was an exceptional case and emphasised that it was important that he attend the course.  Hopefully the defendant had appreciated how close he had come to being sent to prison and the Court expressed the hope that he does take this opportunity.

Total:  £100 fine and 240 hours' community service order and 2 year probation order.

£500 compensation order or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default (8 weeks' in which to pay via the Viscount).

The Court made the final comment to the effect that on two occasions the Court had seen fit to show the defendant mercy but the position had now been reached that were there to be a next time that it was highly likely that there will be no option other than to send him to prison.  The Court expressed the hope that he made the best of this opportunity.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate E. J. Le Guillou for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant has pleaded guilty to a grave and criminal assault on his long term girlfriend, committed after an evening in St Helier outside a guest house that they had arranged to stay in.  He admits hitting her across the face causing her to fall onto the side of a stationary car and then onto the ground, there was then a general scuffle during which he kicked her once in the region of her stomach and punched her.  There was no lasting injury but the assault has clearly had a psychological impact on the victim, causing her to need anti depressants for some few months.  After the assault the defendant went to see his doctor and was admitted to Orchard House for treatment for a period of about a week.

2.        The defendant has a very bad record and indeed a previous conviction for grave and criminal assault in 2006, AG-v-Richomme [2006] JRC 068, to which he was sentenced to 18 months.  That offence was more serious than the offence with which we are concerned today.  The social enquiry report makes it clear that the defendant has had a very troubled childhood during which he suffered violent abuse.  He has worked to overcome his own violent tendencies, his rate of offending has dropped and he does have pro-social friends in his football club.  Since his last conviction his mother has described him as "a diamond" and as a stabilising and very positive influence on his younger brothers.  It is clear to us that you play a very important role in your family.

3.        The defendant has been assessed as suitable to complete the ADAPT programme, a 30 week rolling programme for men who are abusive towards a female partner.  The defendant is keen to undertake that programme.  The probation department recommend a two year probation order for this purpose, the programme being one that cannot be undertaken from prison and they wish also to help the defendant generally change his behaviour.

4.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has, albeit lately, pleaded guilty and he is still entitled to the benefit of youth; he is aged 22.  He is fully employed and indeed his employer is handicapped and relies very much on him. 

5.        We cannot question the Crown's conclusions that ordinarily he should serve an 18 month sentence reached after consideration of the guidelines of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.  There are, however, exceptional cases where the Courts will, as an act of compassion or mercy, depart from the sentencing policies it would ordinarily apply.  Having read the social enquiry report, the letter from yourself, the excellent letter from your mother, who is in Court, the very helpful letter from your doctor and from your employer, and taking into account everything that we have learnt, we conclude that this is such a case.  We also agree that it is important that you attend this ADAPT programme which you are clearly willing to do.  We hope you appreciate just how close you have come to being sent to prison and you really must make the best of this opportunity and this programme and indeed the general guidance that will be given to you by the probation department.  However, I am sure you also appreciate that the offence is very serious and you must therefore be punished and will be sentenced to community service.

6.        We sentence you as follows; on count 1; you are fined £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default and we give you 14 days in which to pay.  On count 2; you will serve 240 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment.  You will be placed on probation for 2 years on the usual conditions but also on condition that you attend the ADAPT programme and any other programmes or courses of which they may consider helpful and appropriate. 

7.        Pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994 we order you to pay compensation of £500 to the victim or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default and we give you 8 weeks in which to pay that sum.

8.        Mr Richomme it is twice now that the Courts have shown mercy to you but the point has surely been reached where, if you offend in this way again, a future Court will have no option but to send you to prison, so we really hope that you make the best of this opportunity and the compassion we have shown towards you.

Authorities

AG-v-Richomme [2006] JRC 068.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994.